I think the key to forcing global cooperation is to hack the economy into a game. One where it's players can play out their biggest moves and be totally shielded by the strength of our numbers. I propose we demonstrate this by creating an Ethereum-based Chess game that would allow the world to bet on their best move, or simply throw a dollar in the pot and say "I don't know". If the players come to a majority decision after filtering out the anonymous and genuine "I don't knows", then Google has to match their total bets to take the next move. I bet we stay in the game longer than Google will.

Anonymity coupled with self-interest will force honesty out of the players. Nobody will bet on themselves if they know they're not an expert on the matter because they can still profit off of the experts' skill. I know the confident bets will overwhelm any possible trolls who value negativity over prosperity.

You're about to read a pretty salty call-out. I can't stress enough that my anger isn't directly at anyone today, because we were all born into the same shitty system.

The world is so convinced that the path to singularity is AI, but frankly, I think I have a faster solution.

First of all, Google could run this awesome experiment a thousand times without the slightest risk to their bottom line, they'll only need to see your interest to make it happen. And you should be interested, because I rigged the game to make sure that their stakes will be high and our risks will be low. I'm a competitive person, I'll always try to tip the odds in my favor. In this particular case, I made my favor the world's favor as well. Join me, because we're about to witness the greatest underdog story of all-time: A multi-threaded collective mind vs Google's AI. They're about to get exposed.

Also, plenty of swearing, didn't really plan this but I think the data would be too valuable to pass up.

TLDR: The world's collective talent and skepticism will prove that technology can be used to make a greed-motivated, human-powered supercomputer while letting Google take the risk; all it takes is valuing an honest "I don't know" over a wild guess.

THE RULES:

0) Standard Chess rules (which I barely know so I refuse to list them)

1) We raise enough attention and funds to pay the highest number of top Chess players in the world to be the first connected to the super-computer. I don't want to even give Google a chance to win. Get the best so our varying levels of experience will make us indomitable.

2) When it's our turn, we individually have to make a choice: We can submit what we would do and place $1 - $50 bets on the move to represent our confidence that it is the best option. The catch is that you can see where your peers are placing their bets in real-time.

Can't decide between 2 moves? DON'T GUESS IDIOT: FUCKING WAIT. There ARE people more confident than you who will make the definitive call, so don't guess: a majority vote benefits everyone and you'll see why when it's Google's turn.

Alternatively, we can just toss a dollar in to say I don't know.

I'll buy-in to "I don't know" every god damn time if I still get paid if we're right, because I know someone else knows how to play. After filtering out the genuine "I don't knows", we're left only with a few trolls who value negativity over money and the moves that people were willing to put their money on. Move with the most money is played.

Super simple way to cut out the bullshit no? Don't they already do this with their surveys? Maybe that's how they're testing this concept, but they need to stop dancing around it and answer this direct challenge.

3) Kay Google, nut up or shut up. If we can agree after filtering out the honest "I don't knows", then you have to double the pot or quit the fucking game and admit you were going down the wrong road the whole time. If we can't agree, then you get a free move.

4) The winner receives 25% percent of the pot and the rest is distributed equally based on how much each participant contributed: yes even Google. Because only our battling skepticism can deduce the truth, win or lose.

What am I proving?

1) Participation is not inherently worth a damn thing. EFFECTIVE participation is ALL that matters.

2) Ethereum is an existing technology that the world could use to settle this ultimate showdown TOMORROW if the resources were allocated to it. Even if you hate Ethereum, the point is that this is fundamentally possible to attempt given the right technology, so Google should be pursuing that technology too instead of going all-in against the human mind.

3) Risk fundamentally doesn't exist if we can agree on a beneficial answer, even if it isn't the best answer. The best thing we could do is make sure everyone moves forward together. With these rules, I could buy-in to 100 "I don't knows" and still be guaranteed $75 back WHILE being eligible for some big ol' bucks. What's a 25% loss split equally among everyone? Google diversifies to mitigate loss constantly.

With Ethereum, I can throw 75% extra of my money in a contract to show I mean business and know for a fact that what I'll be rewarded when I'm right. Just contribute what you wouldn't mind losing and I promise you'll be amazed at how much value even an apathetic contribution has when the skeptical can comfortably and anonymously come together to fuck shit up. We live for it. Doesn't matter who you want to win, it's useful data regardless.

4) Building a network of human minds who can anonymously say "I don't know" (leaving only the confident answers), we can statistically guarantee that the confident majority will reach a beneficial answer every time. Even if we can't beat you, we'll draw it out to the last possible move. In business, time and money are all you need right?

Once this happens, there's no turning back. They'll try to beat us in Go, they'll collectively test our reading, writing, and math but we'll beat their expectations every time until no one can dispute it: We fucked up by ignoring the quiet skeptics.

Prepare for a journey because I've been trying to get this idea out there for a while, but I didn't appeal to your interest so obviously I was doomed to fail.

Look up my /r/cringe worthy twitter account "EasySingularity" (SolvedSingularity? idk), I tried like 4 separate viral campaigns and yall shut that bullshit down quick. The beautiful thing is, yall really only further proved me right, I'm just smart and stupid at the same time. Like anyone else. I tried emailing Ray Kurzweil boldly proclaiming I solved singularity and his editor was like "FUCK OFF OR WE'LL BAN YOU" (in a slightly kinder way). That's the stupid me, but not the usual me.

All those failures only could mean that I wasn't effectively participating, so this is just the next idea. I won't stop coming up with them until one catches on.

Right now, nobody trusts each other. I can emphatically state that I can change the world and the world will just point and laugh, or awkwardly pass me on to the next person as quickly as possible. Not because they have any concrete reason to doubt me, but because I can't explain it well enough to leave them without a doubt. They can't take the risk, even to pass the message on to someone more qualified than they are to verify my plan. Despite realistically losing nothing by passing the claim along, they don't even want to entertain the thought that I might be benefiting more than they are from it.

You know why? Because far before any of us were born we landed on a system that only supports people for what they know and not what they don't.

I don't give a fuck how skeptical you are, save it for when we whoop Google's ass and make them realize they've been trying to use Blu-Ray technology to make a better LazerDisk. Don't know what LazerDisk is? That's fine, because the next generation won't know or care what Google's AI was either.

Skepticism is obviously our internal filtering method: It's the most effective filtering tool any of us possess and we should be paid handsomely for the world to use it. Why do you think I can just confirm my suspicion that some sensational Reddit post is false, just by popping in to check the top comment? Because while I was jerking off, thousands of you had already came and were feeling like it's time to shut some people the fuck up. YOU SAVED ME AND COUNTLESS OTHERS TIME BY AN INHERENTLY NEGATIVE ACTION. IN A WORLD WHERE WE LITERALLY SELL OUR TIME BY THE WEEK, MONTH AND YEAR, WHY AREN'T WE PAID FOR THIS?

The polite try to ignore it, the cynical shout it loudly: People only care about themselves. But after all this time we've proved that we can fight each other and grow at the same god damn time. What would we have to fight over if the system paid you for what you didn't know as well as for what you did? Just show up and be honest so humanity can get shit done.

A single one of you epic Ethereum engineers could set up this challenge as a single contract. I'm too fucking dumb and my job already threatened to let me go if I can't let this go. Of course they have to, because if I waste a second thinking about what I don't already know, that's a risk, because they HAVE to chase the proven ways they've learned and mastered. But how could I discover anything without risk? I understand it completely, but it's definitely not ideal. I like ideal.

The system's flawed, completely and utterly right out of the gates and with Ethereum we can just flip a switch to change that.

But like everyone else I tell this to, I'm sure you're just utterly convinced that because the majority doesn't play Chess, they can't possibly agree enough to get any useful data out of it, we'd need AI to sort out the smart from the stupid!

Nah, because we all know when we're stupid, we're just not going to let anyone else know. I know when I'm spewing bullshit about why Clinton's servers maybe weren't as bad as everyone thinks, maybe Trump will be alright; we all know the fence well. The good ol' "ohhh geez, who am to say either way?" ... A fucking person with a brain consistently more capable than our best technology? Do I have pre-calculate the angle or else risk wildly spraying the whole bathroom? Mostly no. We only need mostly.

You're a walking filter of bullshit. You can be wrong, but you generally aren't. We only make definitive answers on what we know and speculate otherwise. Then why does the current way of things leave no room for this process? We only point out the failures so we think everyone fails, despite knowing fully well that most of us aren't even in the top 50% of our fields. We harshly judge the collective despite the collective having no platform to efficiently demonstrate their vastly reaching knowledge.

Are yall cool with a world where you're wrong and worthless or right but not the best? Because Ethereum CAN change that.

Ethereum could allow us to decide every important thing in the world with "I don't know" as a way to say:

"Sounds like a good idea, I want to make money but I want you to make it for me. Here's my contribution."

And when they do? Yeah, they deserve the larger cut. Just like you would if you were to lead the charge. But you should still get your cut too, because we can all filter our own bullshit and clean up the incorrect data which corrupts our own collective intelligence. I think that's an obviously worthy cause at this point.

I can act like I get the right answer every time, lie to all of your stupid faces and when I'm back under the bridge, safe from irritable human interaction: I choose what's best for me. None of your business what that choice is. If I stand to lose money by being anonymously wrong, then I'm not going to bet my money on something I don't know, are you? We'd be mitigating each other's risk so efficiently that it practically wouldn't exist.

Would it really be bad for the world to get paid to admit when they don't feel qualified enough to make the best decision? When the world encounters a problem, I don't want to fucking starve because I can't solve it myself.

What, is the world on too happy a path to seek a complete overhaul? Maybe I really do need to get out more then.

When I know something to help you, I'll help you. When I don't, I'll step back and let someone who does take the lead. As long as I'm making money I don't give a fuck. But when I truly believe I'm right and you can't think of any concrete reason why I'd be wrong, what do you have to lose through following my train of thought? Isn't having the answers more important than letting the world's innovation grind to a halt?

Yall are why casinos exist, so you can chase the feeling of winning without actually knowing any consistent ways to do it. You'll still act like your random ass thoughts made you money because you're just smart. When you lose you'll blame those pesky odds in the house's favor and never even consider what we could do to massage the odds to be in the world's favor in general.

I know I do that. I'll act like some dude just spammed me to death in For Honor but I know he parried the shit out of me and kicked me off that mountain like the inferior player I was. But why do I play him again? Because my failure will give me a better shot next time, because failure has inherent worth like most successful people always tell you. It's a cliche at this point. We just chose not to pursue failure's worth a long time ago, despite almost unilaterally acknowledging its worth.

What shitty people our ancestors must have been to drill this immediate skepticism towards anyone who's courageous enough to admit they don't know, but are confident as fuck they're right. No, they only pay for participation. Fuck participation, I want to gamify the world to only reward EFFECTIVE participation.

This game will prove, now and perpetually, that we never had to go down an adversarial path in the first place. That all this conflict in the world is the result of an endless feedback loop of ignorance, back and forth, because no one thought of simply using code to make trust obsolete.

I can't make the Solidity code to enforce the rules I listed, but I'll pay the best of you to come forth and do it. If you're new to the language, sit back and let the best take over for once. They'll have you covered until you can give back as well. Don't risk fucking this up for everyone because you want a quick buck. I'd rather a consistent and perpetual buck for everyone. Everyone knows two heads are better than one, so what about 7.6 billion? *We just need our self-interest aligned and a way to simultaneously process data with honesty. A hack for how human's view the pursuit of wealth.

Google, you were forced to perpetuate this fucked up system because nobody could even bring themselves to consider that there'd be a way to change it, myself included.

But I found Ethereum and realized there is. I was designing a large-scale multiplayer strategy game where Ethereum contracts could be robust enough to automate any kind of diplomatic agreement you want to make with other players. Same concept: you buy-in, last nation or alliance standing wins the pot. I was just high thinking about the stupidest way this game could end, which made me consider everyone meeting at the north pole just to say fuck it. Treaty signed, game over, peace. But what if it ended when the world's resources ended instead? You could come together immediately, sign the stupid agreement and just build an interesting world knowing the game won't let the other players grief you. When the only way to break the economy is literally the world running out of resources, it's kind of the best way to do things for everyone, no?

I stubbornly refused to believe my elementary school teachers when they'd talk about power in numbers, because that requires human interaction and I was fat and ugly and had no friends so human interaction was too high a barrier for me to effectively participate. I was shunned and I returned the negativity to them and innocent bystanders along the way. I truly hate that I ever redirected it back at the innocent. but that's the theme of the world, isn't it? I had to convince my job to let me work remotely because sometimes I can't even feel comfortable around people I love. I know that's how it is for a lot of you too. If you don't have a genuine interest in something (including being social), it's fucking impossible to master it.

That's why we go on ridiculous YouTube binges when the world tells you that you need to learn something you don't want to. Why the fuck can't I step away from work for a bit to set this thing up myself, why do I have to rely on you guys to just be entertained by the craziness that would come of this, regardless of the results? I'm fucking stoked we're starting to finally realize that mental illness is real, but why does nobody flip that coin to point out that some people can ignore ambition?

I had to find my own way to succeed alone (by choice to be comfortable), so I turned to knowledge and video games to fill my lonely time instead. I love video games because they put in me in an interactive daydream where I can take on the world alone. Because I couldn't even imagine working together so intimately with others until I could do so by raiding anonymously in World of Warcraft. You can do some crazy shit working together in that game. Also fuck the safety dance.

So let's gamify the world and let's do it immediately. I think it's pretty fitting that a video game programmer would find a way to hack the world to cater only to the effective and not just the willing, while still covering the willing because they have just as much potential value as anyone else They just need the same chances. No one person or group can make that happen, but it'd be a breeze for everyone to, especially if we could get rich doing it.

Ayyyy Google, the anonymity of the internet made us experts in shitting on people, so I think collectively we could shit on your AI too. We'll always agree to follow the best if we know we'll all get paid for it, you'll be setup to lose from the beginning. Doesn't matter to us, we just have to stay in the game long enough to watch our potential money grow, while yours shrinks. Such an easy way to take down the giant, no beanstalk required.**

Prove me wrong and show those who can't get their ideas out because they don't understand positive social interaction as well as everyone else that you do actually believe they have inherent worth. Or that you don't believe it. I don't care. Just realize the treasure chest of data this social experiment would yield. Win, lose or draw, we all have something to gain from this.

You could set this game up 5 times and throw 4 of them without even the slightest chance of hurting you, while I already almost lost my job trying to prove this will work. It's fucked up. Use your resources to gather this valuable data.

I don't know what will happen, but I'd pay good money to find out.

We're handing you the pot Googs. Bitch betta have my honey.